fol. 33v (cont.)I
ssus
jus
vis
jus
vis
Passus octauus
...?...?...de visione
petri plowhman .
Incipit Dowel . Dobet . & Dobest .R.8.0: A second rubricating hand, resembling that of the scribe of Corpus Christi 201 (F), adds, in a slightly different shade of red, the words, de visione petri plowhman. These words are written over an erasure. The same hand adds to the passus heading, in the space that the original scribe always left blank before his first line of text, a second line: Dowel . Dobet . & Dobest . Apparently somewhat later, a third hand, or the second hand using a third shade of red ink, added Incipit at the left margin of the second line. The person responsible for this addition tried to incorporate this new word into the already altered rubric by executing the initial in blue so as to tie it to the passus initial (perhaps wetting and smudging the blue of the initial <Þ> to its left to make the blue <I> of Incipit). At the extreme left margin of the same line as the passus heading, there is the cropped fragment of a guide, apparently three lines long, with single characters in each line detectable but illegible.
Incipit Dowel . Dobet . & Dobest .R.8.0: A second rubricating hand, resembling that of the scribe of Corpus Christi 201 (F), adds, in a slightly different shade of red, the words, de visione petri plowhman. These words are written over an erasure. The same hand adds to the passus heading, in the space that the original scribe always left blank before his first line of text, a second line: Dowel . Dobet . & Dobest . Apparently somewhat later, a third hand, or the second hand using a third shade of red ink, added Incipit at the left margin of the second line. The person responsible for this addition tried to incorporate this new word into the already altered rubric by executing the initial in blue so as to tie it to the passus initial (perhaps wetting and smudging the blue of the initial <Þ> to its left to make the blue <I> of Incipit). At the extreme left margin of the same line as the passus heading, there is the cropped fragment of a guide, apparently three lines long, with single characters in each line detectable but illegible.
fol. 34rI
R.8.4KD.8.4
If any wiȝt wiste where dowel wereR.8.4:
Beta reads was, which agrees with the reading of both Ax and Cx. at Inne
AndR.8.6:
R's And is unique. F begins the line with But þere was,
while beta simply begins with Was. Both Ax and Cx agree with beta. was neuere in þis worldeR.8.6: R
uniquely omits wiȝt immediately after neuere. R's
in þis worlde, though supported by Cx, is also
unique among the B copies; beta and F agree instead on as
I went, which is also the reading of many A copies (others have
wene rather than wente). þat me wisse
couthe .
And preyed hem for chariteR.8.11: Though Cr and C support R's reading, F agrees
with the beta majority in construing this phrase as French, either pur charitee or par
charitee. Though three A manuscripts and one C manuscript agree with R, both Ax and Cx agree with the F/beta form. ar thei passed forther
Where þat dowel dwelleth doth me to wytene .R.8.13: Hereafter,
alpha omits four lines present in beta (and in slightly revised form in the C version):
For þei ben men on þis molde þat moste wyde walken
And knowen contrees and courtes and many kynnes places
Bothe prynces paleyses and pore mennes cotes
And dowel and doyuel where þei dwelle bothe.
For þei ben men on þis molde þat moste wyde walken
And knowen contrees and courtes and many kynnes places
Bothe prynces paleyses and pore mennes cotes
And dowel and doyuel where þei dwelle bothe.
And seydeR.8.17:
Alpha has apparently lost a phrase: LM read And seide sothli; other beta
copies read hem soþly at this point. Cx agrees with
LM.
sepcies in die cadit iustus .
R.8.24KD.8.27
How seuen sithes þe sadde man on þeR.8.24: A majority of beta copies
reads a where alpha has þe, but LM agree with alpha.
Both Ax and Cx agree with LM / alpha. day
synneth .
¶ Lat bringe a man in a bot a-midde aR.8.26:Although F agrees with most beta copies in reading þe, L
concurs with R's a here. Both Ax and Cx agree with LR. brode water .
For if he ne arise þe rathere and rauȝte to þe sterneR.8.31:
Hm and C2 agree with alpha's sterne, but beta reads
stiere. Various A manuscripts attest one or the
other of these two readings.
R.8.32KD.8.35
Þe wynd wald andR.8.32:
Cf. F's on and beta's wyth. Ax
agrees with beta. þe water þe bot ouer-throwe .
And þanne were his lif loste thoruȝ lacches of hym-selue .R.8.33: Here the R scribe omits his usual blank line
between verse strophes, presumably because the next line is the last ruled one for this
side.
f ijus
fol. 34vI
Þat þoruȝ þe fende and þiR.8.39: L agrees with R here, but
all other beta copies attest þe in place of R's þi or
F's oure. Ax agrees with the common beta variant, but
Cx agrees with F, reading oure at this point.
flesch and þisR.8.39:
R's þis is a unique reading among the B witnesses.
The others all agree on þe (which is also the reading of Ax). But Cx agrees with R. frele worlde .
And þat is charite þe chaumpion chief helpe aȝeynes
synne .R.8.42: The punctus at line end is nearly invisible from rubbing.
R.8.44KD.8.47
ÞatR.8.44:
Beta reads And. But Ax agrees with alpha.
þouȝ þi body bowe as bot doth in þe water .
Do a dedlysynnededly synne and
drenche so þi-selueR.8.46:
Beta and F read þi soule, but Ax agrees with R
(though three A copies support the beta/F reading). .
Ac þannmeR.8.51:
Originally R read þanne; the erasure of þa + minim
leaves me, the unstressed form of men, "one," (both F
and beta have man). hath moste þere-of and moste is to blame .
¶ I haue no kende knowynge quod I to conseyue
alle þiR.8.53:
Beta reads ȝowre, but Ax agrees with
alpha. wordes .
¶ I be-kenne þe crist
quod þeiR.8.55:
R's quod þei is unique and presumably erroneous; W and F both read quod he, Hm simply has quod, and most B witnesses agree with Ax in omitting the entire phrase. Cx, however, agrees with the F/W reading. þat on þe croyce
deyede .
R.8.60KD.8.64
Blisse of þoR.8.60: R's þo is supported by Hm and L, but F
and most beta copies agree on þe. The A version has
an identical a-verse (attesting the same variant as F and the beta majority), but of more
consequence is the agreement of Cx with F since the C version witnesses the same complete line. briddes abyde me made .R.8.60: In place of alpha's abyde me made, beta's b-verse reads brouȝte me aslepe. At first glance, this phrasal difference appears to
be one of the many simple instances where beta agrees with Ax against a
reading shared by alpha and Cx, both readings being viable. In reality,
what seems to have occurred is somewhat less common: the copy of A that
Langland was using as the basis of the B revision contained a reversed
half-line (made me abide
A9.55b) and an ensuing dittography (Blisse of þe
briddis
A9.58a). In fact, both errors, unrelated to each other, were the fault
of the archetypal A scribe — or of the author. Having noticed them
while composing B, Langland presumably marked the A9.55b phrase for reversal and then created a correction for the dittography of A9.58a (in the form of a marginal or interlinear): he varied this second
occurrence of the repeated phrase to Murþe of hire mouþes and then had to
revise the b-verse of the same line (perhaps in the opposite margin) to fit the new
alliterative pattern, so we get made me þer to slepe instead of the A-version's brouȝte me a slepe.Confronted with
Bx's devotedly passive reproduction of this patchwork revision, the
beta scribe seems to have garbled matters in his own unique way, assuming that he was to
replace the b-verse of 55 — as it appeared in the underlying A-version text — with the unrevised A-version b-verse of
58, when all that was asked of him was to flip the staves of extant 55b and heed all of the
marginal information at line 58. What beta has created, then, is not likely to reflect any
authorial state of the text.
And vnder lyndeR.8.61: Though BoCot also omit a determiner before lynde, F and beta agree in reading the phrase as a lynde. The reading of F/beta agrees with that of Ax while the R reading agrees with the phrasing found in Cx.
vppo a launde lened I a stounde .
To lythe þe layes þat þe foulesR.8.62: Beta reads þo louely foules; F has þe
Nytyngalis. Ax reads þat (þe) louely
foulis. made .
R.8.64KD.8.68
MerueylokestR.8.64:
R uniquely omits Þe at the head of this line. meteles
mette me þanne .
Þat euer dremed wiȝte in world as I wene .R.8.65: Here
the R scribe omits his usual blank line between verse strophes, presumably because the next
line is the last ruled one for this side.
fol. 35rI
R.8.68KD.8.72
¶ What art þow quod IR.8.68:
R uniquely omits þo after quod I. However, this adverb
in the other B copies may well be a scribal addition since the same
omission as found in R characterizes Cx and half of the A witnesses. þat þow my name knoweste .
R.8.72KD.8.76
¶ Art þow thouȝt quod I þo þow coudest
me wisse where .R.8.72: R uniquely divides this line after where; the other B witnesses divide the line after wisse, beginning the
next line with Where.
Þat dowel dwelleth and do me hymR.8.73:
In place of alpha's hym, beta reads þat. Cx renders this line without including either word. to knowe .
And withR.8.85: Beta reads þus with here. Ax agrees
with alpha. mammonas mone he hatz ymade hym frendes .
And is ronne in-toR.8.86:
Although most other beta witnesses have to, LM support alpha's in-to. The LMRF reading is also that of Ax and Cx. religion and hath rendred
þe billebi[b]le .
And prechedR.8.87: Though G and O join R in attesting a preterite form for
this verb, F and most beta copies read precheth, which is also the reading
of the archetypes of the other two versions. to þe poeple seynt poules wordes
.
R.8.88KD.8.93
Libenter suffertis incipientes cum
ipsi sitisR.8.88: With regard to alpha's word order here, it should be noted that F confuses
the verb, using scitis), while beta transposes this phrase as
sitis ipsi. Those C manuscripts that
cite this text in full follow the same phrase order as beta.
insapientes .
R.8.92KD.8.97
Is an hokeR.8.92:
In place of R's unique an hoke, both beta and F read hoked. on þat on ende to halye men fro helle .
A pyke onR.8.93:
R parallels beta exactly but uniquely omits is before on; F includes the verb but rearranges the half-line. Ax agrees
with beta. þat potente to pelte adoun þe wikkede .
Þat wayten any wikkednesse dowel to tene .R.8.94: Here
the R scribe omits his usual blank line between verse strophes, presumably because the next
line is the last ruled one for this side.
fiij
fol. 35vI
R.8.96KD.8.101
To croune andR.8.96:
R's and is a unique reading. F omits the entire line, and beta reads one to be kynge to kepen hem alle . For R's kepen hem alle, beta reads rulen hem bothe. F omits the whole line.
The alliteration in R is clearly preferable to that in beta, and Cx
agrees at least with R's verb. But R's b-verse seems conflated with a similar b-verse
properly belonging several lines below this point in Bx (= Crouned one to be kynge to kepin hem alle [KD8.108]). To judge from the evidence of
both R and F (each shows corruptions and omissions for several lines in a row), alpha was
significantly deficient in this passage. Alpha probably omitted all five of the lines in this
passage which are present in beta but missing from R (presumably by eyeskip induced from
similar a-verses). The two sub-archtypes rejoin each other at KD8.109, but part of the
problem continues beyond that point.
When Kane and Donaldson examined this garbled passage, they hypothesized that alpha's text for this passage was accurately reflected in F (R being solely responsible for the omission in question); they further postulated that Bx itself had lost two lines (i.e., KD8.103 and KD8.105), lines which are now available only in F and in the A-version. Of course it must be recalled that their hypothetical narrative of F's production included the supposition that F had access, for proofing purposes, to a copy of B whose text was superior to that of the common archetype of all extant B manuscripts. However, it must be recalled that F not only reproduces, in this passage, three A lines unattested in any other B manuscript (KD8.113 as well as the two mentioned above). In addition, F puts forward three distinctive A-version variants in lines that do survive in beta (presoun for beta's in yrens [KD8.104]; & be here conseyl wirche for beta's to kepin hem alle [KD8.108]; and so me crist helpe for the R/beta I coueite to lerne) Collectively, this evidence suggests a different, simpler explanation of F's text: having found his alpha copytext deficient in this verse paragraph, the F-scribe (or his predecessor) borrowed all of the missing text from an A manuscript usually available to him.
When Kane and Donaldson examined this garbled passage, they hypothesized that alpha's text for this passage was accurately reflected in F (R being solely responsible for the omission in question); they further postulated that Bx itself had lost two lines (i.e., KD8.103 and KD8.105), lines which are now available only in F and in the A-version. Of course it must be recalled that their hypothetical narrative of F's production included the supposition that F had access, for proofing purposes, to a copy of B whose text was superior to that of the common archetype of all extant B manuscripts. However, it must be recalled that F not only reproduces, in this passage, three A lines unattested in any other B manuscript (KD8.113 as well as the two mentioned above). In addition, F puts forward three distinctive A-version variants in lines that do survive in beta (presoun for beta's in yrens [KD8.104]; & be here conseyl wirche for beta's to kepin hem alle [KD8.108]; and so me crist helpe for the R/beta I coueite to lerne) Collectively, this evidence suggests a different, simpler explanation of F's text: having found his alpha copytext deficient in this verse paragraph, the F-scribe (or his predecessor) borrowed all of the missing text from an A manuscript usually available to him.
R.8.100KD.8.112-113
AcR.8.100:
Beta reads Ac ȝete sauoureth. F rephrases the
entire line but includes ȝyt in its a-verse. Although various beta
copies substitute other variants for ȝete, only R completely omits a
word here. sauoureth me nauȝt þi seggyng I coueit to lerne .
And ar we war wereR.8.106:
Both beta and F transpose this phrase to were(n) (y)war. R's phrasing
agrees with Ax and with the X family of C. The word
order of F/beta agrees with that of the P family of C.
with witt gonne we mete .
R.8.112KD.8.125
And put forthe hisR.8.112:
R's his is a unique reading; the other B manuscripts
agree with Ax and Cx in reading somme. porpose to prouen his wittes .
Whether dowel dobet and dobest in londe .R.8.115: The loss of the verb here presumably occurred in alpha since F also shows
this omission; however, the point of its loss must remain speculative since F has recast the
entire line by adding a verb to the a-verse. Bx = ben in londe—the same reading found in Ax
(= beþ or ben) and Cx. The fact
that M inserts ben as a correction suggests that the word had been omitted
in Bx itself and then supplied by the Bx scribe as
an interlinear or marginal."
R.8.116KD.8.129
HereR.8.116:
Beta reads Here is wille. F rewrites the line. Ax agrees completely with beta. The C version of the
line is slightly revised, but the syntax is the same as beta's and includes is. wille wolde I-witt if wit coude
teche hym .
And whether he be man or nomanR.8.117: In place of R's noman (which probably reflects alpha's reading — F reads noon), beta had either womman (the reading of the majority) or man (the reading of L). If L's reading is correct (which seems likelier),
then beta also had an interlinear correction, no, which was overlooked by
L, transmitted in the same form — as an interlinear — through beta prime, and
then deciphered correctly by C as well as the B group (which agree with R) while being
garbled to wo by most later witnesses. þis man fayn wold
aspie .